DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied, on both procedural and substantive grounds, the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3101(d) to preclude the defendant's expert from testifying at trial. The plaintiffs' attorney failed to provide the required affirmation of a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion (see, 22 NYCRR 202.7[a][2]; Barnes v. NYNEX, Inc., 274 A.D.2d 368; Romero v. Korn, 236 A.D.2d 598; Gonzalez v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 236 A.D.2d 363). Moreover, the expert disclosure provided by the defendant pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1) was adequate (see, Marshall v. 130 N. Bedford Rd. Mt. Kisco Corp., ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Nov. 27, 2000]; McGlauflin v. Wadhwa, 265 A.D.2d 534).